Home / Fulltext Opinions / Virginia Court of Appeals / CHUBBICK v. COMMONWEALTH

CHUBBICK v. COMMONWEALTH




NOTICE: The opinions posted here are subject to formal
revision. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify
the Virginia Court of Appeals.


CHUBBICK

v.

COMMONWEALTH


COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Hodges

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia

Record No. 2554-02-1

JHYY DEMOND CHUBBICK

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]
BY JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS

OCTOBER 28, 2003

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE

Bruce H. Kushner, Judge

Matthew T. Taylor for appellant.

Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore,

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Jhyy Demond Chubbick appeals his conviction, after a jury trial,
for felony escape from a

law enforcement officer, in violation of Code ? 18.2-478.[2]
Chubbick contends the trial court

erred in denying his motion to strike the charge on the grounds
that the evidence failed to

establish, as a matter of law, that Chubbick "was in the
custody of an officer on a charge of

criminal offense." Because we find that Chubbick failed to
argue in his brief on appeal the

specific issue upon which his appeal was awarded, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.

This Court granted Chubbick’s petition for appeal on March 7,
2003. In our order

granting Chubbick’s petition, we limited his appeal to a single
issue. Specifically, whether "[t]he

trial court err[ed] by denying appellant’s motion to strike
where the evidence failed to prove he

was in the custody of an officer on a charge of criminal
offense[.]"

However, in his brief on appeal, Chubbick does not argue that
the Commonwealth failed

to prove that he was in the custody of police on a criminal
offense. Instead, Chubbick argues

that the Commonwealth failed to prove he was in the custody of
police on a "felonious charge."

To support his argument, Chubbick contends that "[Code ?] 18.2-479(B)" requires the

Commonwealth to "prove" that Chubbick "escape[d] from a law enforcement officer while in

custody on a charge or conviction of a felony."
(Emphases in original). Thus, in his brief on

appeal, Chubbick curiously ignores the fact that he was
convicted of a violation of Code

? 18.2-478, not Code ? 18.2-479(B). This is true, despite the
fact that the record clearly

demonstrates that, prior to the commencement of trial, Chubbick
specifically agreed to amend

the indictment, changing the charge from an alleged violation
under Code ? 18.2-479(B) to one

under Code ? 18.2-478.[3]

Because Chubbick failed to brief the specific issue upon which
his appeal was awarded,

and as directed by this Court, we do not address his appeal
further. See Rule 5A:20(e) (requiring

the appellant’s brief to include, among other things,
"principles of law, the argument, and the

authorities relating to each question presented"); Thomas
v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 319,

321 n.1, 563 S.E.2d 406, 407 n.1 (2002) (recognizing that
conclusory assertions in a brief,

unsupported by "argument, authority, or citations to the
record," do not merit appellate

consideration); Dickerson v. Commonwealth, 36 Va. App. 8, 15,
548 S.E.2d 230, 234 (2001);

Bennett v. Commonwealth, 35 Va. App. 442, 452, 546 S.E.2d 209,
213 (2001); Buchanan v.

Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.

Affirmed

 

FOOTNOTES:

[1]Pursuant to
Code ? 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Further,

because this opinion has no precedential value, we recite only
those facts essential to our

holding.

 

[2]Chubbick was
also tried on charges of assault and battery on a law enforcement officer,

in violation of Code ? 18.2-57(C), and breaking and entering
with the intent to commit larceny,

in violation of Code ? 18.2-91. The jury convicted Chubbick of
assault and battery on a law

enforcement officer, but acquitted him on the charge of breaking
and entering. Neither of these

charges, nor their disposition, is at issue on this appeal.

 

[3]Chubbick
raises no issue on appeal pertaining to the propriety of the amendment.


Scroll To Top